Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    Or you could just drink healthily.
    or I could have freedom and liberty and we could have a free market society not controlled by the state.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The reason it is targeted on fizzy drinks is that people tend to consume these in large quantities, while they are less likely to drink 2 or 4 litres of starbucks expensive latte each day. Sugary drinks have been linked to type 2 diabetes in a way that other high-sugar products have not. Essentially the tax is similar to the high amount of duty on alcohol or tobacco. The impact will be minimal on people who do not over-indulge, but may provide a limited deterrent to those who consume excessive quantities.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    that statement assumes that people who become obese by their own choies deserve health care. I disagree. I think only (basically) unpreventable diseases should be given free treatment. I mean, why should a society subsidise the stupidity of people via the NHS? that isn't something worth investing in
    Country needs people as its workforce and to pay taxes.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Public health has always been an issue for government for hundreds of years.

    It picks up the tab becayse the cost of dealing with obesity is going to plunge the health service into crisis. It should pay for itself or people should accpet more tax rises.
    The fact that the government has been involved in something doesn't justify its involvement.

    It picks up the tab because it chooses to pick up the tab. It is entirely fallacious to attempt to justify a governmental intrusion into people's lifestyles by reference to another entirely optional governmental initiative. The health system should be made to fit around private citizens' autonomy, not the other way round. Your right not to have government involved in your private life is anterior to and more important than any taxpayer funded healthcare you may think desirable. Autonomy is a fundament; healthcare is just a service.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    The fact that the government has been involved in something doesn't justify its involvement.

    It picks up the tab because it chooses to pick up the tab. It is entirely fallacious to attempt to justify a governmental intrusion into people's lifestyles by reference to another entirely optional governmental initiative. The health system should be made to fit around private citizens' autonomy, not the other way round. Your right not to have government involved in your private life is anterior to and more important than any taxpayer funded healthcare you may think desirable. Autonomy is a fundament; healthcare is just a service.
    Think ill just agree to disagree. go and look at the history of public health and figure out whether we would be better off without it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by firstofthestartz)
    like why is it bad for people to be healthy???
    you know hat makes me laugh the most is that is tax will have been defeated by the end of the year as big fizz is suing the government on the matter and well in the past in denmark and sweden such taxes were applied but were overturned in court
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Think ill just agree to disagree. go and look at the history of public health and figure out whether we would be better off without it.
    Whether we would be 'better off' depends on your frame of reference. As far as I am concerned, we are far worse off with government intruding into our lives in this way. I am capable of looking after my own health, and other people's lifestyles are fundamentally none of my business -- or yours, or anyone else's.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    or I could have freedom and liberty and we could have a free market society not controlled by the state.
    why are you crying over having to pay 20p extra for a drink which will take months off your life in high quantity anyway, when some people in the world don't even have free speech or access to water

    i'm sure plenty of homeless people in Niger or Kenya would happily trade your liberty for theirs.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pjm600)
    Disproportionately affects the poor. Is a blunt instrument, no one would contest that tonic water is damaging peoples' health. Milk based drinks are exempt, so milkshakes escape. Targets only drinks, not fast food etc.

    Everybody outside politics knows that adding a tax is not effective in changing behavior, but it will just generate revenue from those who drink sugary drinks the most, who might happen not to be the political class. Adding 20p on to the price of a litre of coke will not stop people buying it. For various reasons, humans cannot be treated rational economic actors which this measure attempts to do.

    Aside from generating revenue, it will not work.
    Then it's the poor who are obese. They can't be trusted to control their weight so government intervention is essential

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    why are you crying over having to pay 20p extra for a drink which will take months off your life in high quantity anyway, when some people in the world don't even have free speech or access to water

    i'm sure plenty of homeless people in Niger or Kenya would happily trade your liberty for theirs.
    'How can you complain about the Snooper's Charter when North Koreans have no privacy at all?!'

    I'm sorry, but this is a completely idiotic form of argument. You assess by issue whether a proposal is good, bad, or indifferent. Saying that some people in the world have an overall worse deal is no argument in favour of this move.

    (Original post by SMEGGGY)
    They can't be trusted to control their weight so government intervention is essential
    It's nothing to do with trust. If something is none of your business in the first place, your 'trust' in relation to it is irrelevant.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    If you have a medical condition that requires you to have salt it would be better to get your salt from a better source, processed foods contain ridiculous amounts of salt, cornflakes contain more salt than sea water.
    Your maths seems to be off, in 1kg of corn flakes there is 12.5g of salt. In 1L of seawater there is roughly 35g of salt.

    I actually do have a medical condition that requires salt intake more than the average.
    Offline

    19
    Paternalistic
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    why are you crying over having to pay 20p extra for a drink which will take months off your life in high quantity anyway, when some people in the world don't even have free speech or access to water

    i'm sure plenty of homeless people in Niger or Kenya would happily trade your liberty for theirs.
    so instead of explaining how this goernment policy is justified, you are essentially resorting to comparing the policy to africa. wow...that is some serious thoughtless desperation
    how about we simply have the best option, which is NOT having a stupid law like this which is going to punish healthy people for the sake of the fat? let's think of it with other comparisons (as you like them so much) - imagine that water was going to be taxed because some people drink too much of it (which can have lethal effects towards the brain) - is it right to have that policy just because some people are clueless morons with regards to their choices with how much they choose to drink? would a government like that be favouring the prudent or the dumb? who's interests are being served?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Country needs people as its workforce and to pay taxes.
    you could say that about people in prison - prisoners could be workers too. :hello:
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    you could say that about people in prison - prisoners could be workers too. :hello:
    Thy arent as useful as workers though, so not really.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Thy arent as useful as workers though, so not really.
    realistically, how productive do you consider obese people? do you think prisoners will likely re-offend every time?
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I don't get why the everyone is focusing on the sugar tax. What about the chancellor saying all schools would be made into academy's or all the cuts to disabled benefits (which I have no idea what's happened with now as the budget in various bits seems to have imploded). Surely these things are more important... No? Coca Cola having to pay a bit more tax... that's the headline is it?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    'How can you complain about the Snooper's Charter when North Koreans have no privacy at all?!'

    I'm sorry, but this is a completely idiotic form of argument. You assess by issue whether a proposal is good, bad, or indifferent. Saying that some people in the world have an overall worse deal is no argument in favour of this move.



    It's nothing to do with trust. If something is none of your business in the first place, your 'trust' in relation to it is irrelevant.
    No, it's idiotic because you misread it and twisted it into your own words.

    This person is complaining that he is going to become poor on 20p extra from sugary drinks, talk about first world problems.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    so instead of explaining how this goernment policy is justified, you are essentially resorting to comparing the policy to africa. wow...that is some serious thoughtless desperation
    how about we simply have the best option, which is NOT having a stupid law like this which is going to punish healthy people for the sake of the fat? let's think of it with other comparisons (as you like them so much) - imagine that water was going to be taxed because some people drink too much of it (which can have lethal effects towards the brain) - is it right to have that policy just because some people are clueless morons with regards to their choices with how much they choose to drink? would a government like that be favouring the prudent or the dumb? who's interests are being served?
    I suppose if you say "wow thats desperate" enough it becomes desperate in your eyes.

    But you can't deny the truth, you're complaining about having to pay 20p extra for unhealthy drinks when some people can't even get healthy drinks, and 'your liberty is being violated' lmao.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    No, it's idiotic because you misread it and twisted it into your own words.

    This person is complaining that he is going to become poor on 20p extra from sugary drinks, talk about first world problems.
    "First world problems" is not a legitimate argument in this case. Loads of problems and political issues in this country could be dismissed as insignificant according to the logic you're using. It's not an argument, it's a distraction.

    The existence of bigger problems in other countries does not make things like sugar tax any less of an issue in this country.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.